Rohr RTL III Turboliners: Status, Location, Disposition

Thanks for the update! Here's a collection of photos showing the partially completed RTL III's and the lone RTL II.

Head's Up: The photos Mr Hsr_fan notes at webshots.com were uploaded two years ago.

hsr_fan wrote:If you or I threw $70 million in taxpayer funds down the toilet, we'd be in jail. We need to start demanding accountability from our politicians.

Mr High Speed, I respect your zeal and duly note your point, you are hardly the first to suggest "that gang up the River" @ MP141 really ought to be a bit further 'down the River" @ MP20 or thereabouts.

I agree, the Turboliner rebuild project was an utter waste of State T/P funds. Those Turboliner sets will simply sit indefinitely at both Bear (the Amtrak hostages) and Schnectady along with other "monuments" such the three SPV-2000 shells at what was Mechtron Industries in Wilmington. The Turbos best hope for an "afterlife" is donation to a railroad muesum.

Other "monuments' to failed or poorly planned rail projects were the 100 or so Jersey Arrows that sat indefinitely at Manhattan Transfer circa 1977 awaiting completion of the interchange at Harrison with the DL&W. Also Metroliner MU equipment sat indefinitely circa 1968 near Trenton.

But the worst to me was riding the New Haven circa 1960 past Cedar Hill (jct Corridor and Springfield Lines) in its badly deterioriating equipment and seeing the two stored Talgo trains "just sitting there'. Of course such was far more shameful to a 19 year old's eyes than it would be those same 66 year old ones.

Inspired by a comment in another thread, I pose this question regarding the ever-maligned, sadly-stored Turboliners...

Would it be theoretically possible to convert the Turboliner propulsion systems to straight diesel and still have it perform as well as they did before they were withdrawn from service?

Possible or Stupidly Ridiculous?

I believe the question has been posed before and as I recall, the general consensus was that it's not feasible, or at least not very practical. I think a diesel of adequate power would simply be too large and heavy to work in place of the turbines.

I do wonder what Beech Grove could do with the Turboliners. As I recall, Beech Grove rebuilt the three French Turbos that were given Rohr Turboliner-like styling and third rail capability. Could they have done the RTL III rebuild instead of Super Steel, perhaps with better results?

Why spend the money, they are junk.

My brother enjoying the ride on the nicest piece of junk I've been aboard! I'll defer to those who ran 'em when it comes to their mechanical worthiness, but they sure were nice to ride on - nicer than Amfleets, in my opinion! Yours truly in business class.

Maybe conversion to overhead electric would be better.

It would free up some need for cab cars and locomotives on the Keystones and would solve the fuel consumption issues.

Although other shortcomings of the design may have to be overhauled as well (AC/Heat).

How about both possible and stupidly ridiculous? The Turboliners almost certainly won't get rebuilt again, much to hsr_fan's regret, and it's doubtful anyone will use them as-is unless diesel fuel prices drop dramatically.

For the sake of argument, let's say New York State installs a Caterpillar C32 ACERT, a Tier 2-compliant V-12 of 1350 brake hp, into this space on each end of the trainset. We'll assume they keep the original 300 hp HEP turbines. The V-12 is about 7' x 5' x 5', close in length to the ~1100 hp, 6.5' x 2.5' x 2.5' Turbomeca Turmo III but much bulkier. However, the V12's dry weight of 5368 lb. doesn't compare well to the 659 lb. turbine, and the control car would need massive bracing. Plus, there's noise suppression, working out a different engine control system, regearing or replacing the transmissions, etc, etc. All in all, possible, but rather unlikely.

A new set of cars powered by these Cats could replace the turbine power cars and keep the rest of the trainsets from going to waste. Being as the trainsets are already 30 years old and are non-standard, that probably won't happen either, but it's a thought should Amtrak ever decide to investigate lightweight diesel trains.

mtuandrew wrote:The V-12 is about 7' x 5' x 5', close in length to the ~1100 hp,

That's an interesting read on the French turbos. From the Wikipedia article:

It remained unrivaled on the Lyon-Bordeaux route, where four reversals are required and the T 2000's double-ended cabs saved considerable time switching power cars from one end of the train to the other.

A modern diesel equivalent, with power cars at each end, would probably work well on the Vermonter route.

fwiw, here's a picture I took that sort of shows the exhaust area on the roof.

hsr_fan wrote:

mtuandrew wrote:The V-12 is about 7' x 5' x 5', close in length to the ~1100 hp,

That's an interesting read on the French turbos. From the Wikipedia article:

It remained unrivaled on the Lyon-Bordeaux route, where four reversals are required and the T 2000's double-ended cabs saved considerable time switching power cars from one end of the train to the other.

A modern diesel equivalent, with power cars at each end, would probably work well on the Vermonter route.

fwiw, here's a picture I took that sort of shows the exhaust area on the roof.

NO a modern day turbo with a diesel on each end would NOT work well on
the Vermonter for the same reason that the turbo trains do not work well
anywhere else. They would not possibly make this trip without a
technician aboard and they do not run well off third rail either.
They are simply too old and do not mix well with anything else either.
I don't think very many Amtrak people are shedding any tears that these
things are gone.
Noel Weaver

Couldnt of said it better myself. Ive had the great displeasure of working and running these things and I shudder each time I hear they might come back.

To me, the whole Turboliner question is not so much "Why can't we make these run again?" but rather "Why can't we have good equipment?"

If all of the Amfleets turned into pumpkins at midnight tonight, would anyone care in the least as long as Amtrak could still cobble together trains for tomorrow? I've never read anything here or elsewhere that suggests there'd be any lament over the end of the Amfleet.

The fact that people are pining for a 30 year old trainset should tell us something all by itself. Next to Acela, the Turboliner was the best Amtrak equipment I've ever seen from the passenger's perspective (I'm not including the Superliner -- totally different mission).

Noel Weaver wrote:
They are simply too old and do not mix well with anything else either.
Noel Weaver

I think that being "odd" was a major problem. It is generally wise to have as few different types of equipment as possible due to issues of parts inventory, repair crew training, operating crew training, etc. While Amtrak certainly has a lot of different equipment, any reduction helps.

Noel Weaver wrote: NO a modern day turbo with a diesel on each end would NOT work well on
the Vermonter for the same reason that the turbo trains do not work well
anywhere else. They would not possibly make this trip without a
technician aboard and they do not run well off third rail either.
They are simply too old and do not mix well with anything else either.

I didn't mean the Turbos themselves, but rather an diesel trainset with similar "power cars" at each end, making the Vermonter's reverse move easier. I guess it's not altogether different from the DMU concept that Vermont apparently just rejected, except I was thinking a trainset with more capacity, and one that could perhaps also be pulled by electric power on the NEC. Perhaps Siemens' "Lake Cities Express" proposal for the midwest a few years back is the closest thing to what I'm talking about.